dm_metadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the path_status states (found/not_found/unavailable), the complete and issues signals, and warns not to treat truncation or read failure as missing labels. Missing are permissions/auth requirements and any rate or size limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three clauses with the purpose front-loaded and then the verification order. No filler, though the run-on second sentence packs several ideas together.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully explains what the caller will see back (path_status, complete, issues) and how to interpret it. What remains uncovered is failure semantics like permissions or concurrency, which is a minor gap for a read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so prefix, image_id and max_depth are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the informal notion of a 'subtree budget' and the resolve-prefix-first step, adding little beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb+resource: '读取指定元数据子树' (read the specified metadata subtree). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names which sibling (e.g. dm_datasets, dm_profile) it should be preferred over.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit read order — check path_status first, then complete/issues, locate the prefix before reading against the subtree budget — which tells the agent how to sequence calls. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.